PIP Margerat Thatcher

[Henda]

I have no allegiance to Cameron, i have no idea of the % who have benefited since he came to office. But can you show me the % of people that have lost ...where are your FACTS

i for one have lost out since the wanker got into office. The vat increase costs me 40 to 50 quid a week in the busier months and scrapping the small buisness rates for coincil tax persueded me and my mate to give up our workshop.

[Donny]

 ok

[gee38]

so in short

pensioners who live off the state and have more bedrooms than they need will lose money




I wonder how much Liz windsor and co are going to lose then?

[Conker]

i for one have lost out since the wanker got into office. The vat increase costs me 40 to 50 quid a week in the busier months and scrapping the small buisness rates for coincil tax persueded me and my mate to give up our workshop.

the problem is when you end up with the debt problems the uk ended up with at the end of labour's reign, the books need to be balanced and it's inevitable that taxes are going to have to go up somewhere and there are going to be losers. you could argue if labour had managed the economy better, there would have been no need for tax increases, as the tories are not exactly known for wanting to raise taxes.

[Donny]

the problem is when you end up with the debt problems the uk ended up with at the end of labour's reign, the books need to be balanced and it's inevitable that taxes are going to have to go up to somewhere and there are going to be losers. you could argue if labour had managed the economy better, there would have been no need for tax increases, as the tories are not exactly known for wanting to raise taxes.

so what about students?

[Conker]

so what about students?

what about them?

[Donny]

what about them?

watch the video

[Conker]

watch the video

don't really know anything about the EMA so can't comment. one thing i will say about university fees, i think it is right for students to chip in when cuts and tax increases are needed across the board, but one thing that i think was out of order was that initially it was announced that £9000 a year would be the top rate but that would supposedly only be in exceptional cases.

Then when the universities released their fees nearly every one was £9000, but then that hits the middle classes just as bad as the working classes(probably worse) as the grants are means tested so if your parents have money, they have to pay the fees up front, whereas if your parents can't afford it you get the fees offset until you are earning.

[Donny]

don't really know anything about the EMA so can't comment. one thing i will say about university fees, i think it is right for students to chip in when cuts and tax increases are needed across the board, but one thing that i think was out of order was that initially it was announced that £9000 a year would be the top rate but that would supposedly only be in exceptional cases.

Then when the universities released their fees nearly every one was £9000, but then that hits the middle classes just as bad as the working classes(probably worse) as the grants are means tested so if your parents have money, they have to pay the fees up front, whereas if your parents can't afford it you get the fees offset until you are earning.
no watch the video again. it´s not just about UNI but College students too and their help to educate themselves  not with "luxuries" but basics. the little help they got was cut from Cameron. So if these young people do not get a chance to educate themselves and intelligence is nothing to do with wealth.. then tell me how a working class kid will get there.

[Donny]

watch it again.. you do not understand

[Henda]

the problem is when you end up with the debt problems the uk ended up with at the end of labour's reign, the books need to be balanced and it's inevitable that taxes are going to have to go up somewhere and there are going to be losers. you could argue if labour had managed the economy better, there would have been no need for tax increases, as the tories are not exactly known for wanting to raise taxes.

How is lowering tax for the highest earners going to help this problem.
How is it fair that a high earning paye employee on say £150000 a year is £7500 a year better off where someone like me who doesent earn a great deal but spends a lot on materials is £2000 a year worse off from the vat increase alone.
Typical conservative government looking after the rich and fucking over the working class.

[Conker]

How is lowering tax for the highest earners going to help this problem.
How is it fair that a high earning paye employee on say £150000 a year is £7500 a year better off where someone like me who doesent earn a great deal but spends a lot on materials is £2000 a year worse off from the vat increase alone.
Typical conservative government looking after the rich and fucking over the working class.

not sure where you get those figs from, as the highest rate of tax has risen from 40% - 50% , put up at the end of the labour term and not changed by the tories. although there is pretty good evidence that 50% tax is probably higher than optimal for the good of everyone in the long run.

the myth that the tories look after the rich and screw the poor is just propaganda, the last labour government actually lowered taxes and courted the rich far more than any government in recent UK history(current one included). And to be fair labour did a pretty good job at encouraging healthy economic growth.

there was something like 12 years of unbroken economic growth under labour with record tax receipts(albeit with low tax rates) yet they still managed to leave the country in monumental debt and with a record spending deficit.

i am not a supporter of any party but when you look at the facts , there does appear to be a cycle where labour takes the the country to the brink of financial ruin and then the tories come and clean up their mess. it happened back in the 70s, 3 day weeks, union mob rule, imf bail outs, sick man of europe label etc, thatcher turned that around and when labour came back in 97 they inherited a golden egg economy. they did well for a long time, as blair had stolen the tories' clothes and never really veered from the economic policies of his predecessors. but eventually they let public spending get out of control and when the global downturn hit instead of being in a strong position to deal with it as you should be after years of strong growth, the country was back at the brink of bankruptcy, with labour vowing to spend their way out of debt...and the cycle continues.

[Henda]

not sure where you get those figs from, as the highest rate of tax has risen from 40% - 50% , put up at the end of the labour term and not changed by the tories. although there is pretty good evidence that 50% tax is probably higher than optimal for the good of everyone in the long run.

the myth that the tories look after the rich and screw the poor is just propaganda, the last labour government actually lowered taxes and courted the rich far more than any government in recent UK history(current one included). And to be fair labour did a pretty good job at encouraging healthy economic growth.

there was something like 12 years of unbroken economic growth under labour with record tax receipts(albeit with low tax rates) yet they still managed to leave the country in monumental debt and with a record spending deficit.

i am not a supporter of any party but when you look at the facts , there does appear to be a cycle where labour takes the the country to the brink of financial ruin and then the tories come and clean up their mess. it happened back in the 70s, 3 day weeks, union mob rule, imf bail outs, sick man of europe label etc, thatcher turned that around and when labour came back in 97 they inherited a golden egg economy. they did well for a long time, as blair had stolen the tories' clothes and never really veered from the economic policies of his predecessors. but eventually they let public spending get out of control and when the global downturn hit instead of being in a strong position to deal with it as you should be after years of strong growth, the country was back at the brink of bankruptcy, with labour vowing to spend their way out of debt...and the cycle continues.

they have just cut it to 45% for highest earners

[monstermunch]

[Mr Nobody]

they have just cut it to 45% for highest earners

To hell with that noise, the middle income wage earners need the cut.

[Donny]

not sure where you get those figs from, as the highest rate of tax has risen from 40% - 50% , put up at the end of the labour term and not changed by the tories. although there is pretty good evidence that 50% tax is probably higher than optimal for the good of everyone in the long run.

the myth that the tories look after the rich and screw the poor is just propaganda, the last labour government actually lowered taxes and courted the rich far more than any government in recent UK history(current one included). And to be fair labour did a pretty good job at encouraging healthy economic growth.

there was something like 12 years of unbroken economic growth under labour with record tax receipts(albeit with low tax rates) yet they still managed to leave the country in monumental debt and with a record spending deficit.

i am not a supporter of any party but when you look at the facts , there does appear to be a cycle where labour takes the the country to the brink of financial ruin and then the tories come and clean up their mess. it happened back in the 70s, 3 day weeks, union mob rule, imf bail outs, sick man of europe label etc, thatcher turned that around and when labour came back in 97 they inherited a golden egg economy. they did well for a long time, as blair had stolen the tories' clothes and never really veered from the economic policies of his predecessors. but eventually they let public spending get out of control and when the global downturn hit instead of being in a strong position to deal with it as you should be after years of strong growth, the country was back at the brink of bankruptcy, with labour vowing to spend their way out of debt...and the cycle continues.

where do YOU get your figures from ?

[Donny]

THIS IS THE TRUTH

[Soul Crusher]

fantastic 
passionately and eloquently stated

How is welfare and drug dealing treatibg you benny? 

[TrueGrit]

Raw, no pulling out.

[AbrahamG]

RIP a true legend of the world! She was greater than you!

Good riddance.  She was a wart on the cock of Great Britain.

[Gregzs]

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/entertainment-eonline/20130412/b407214/

Margaret Thatcher's Death Sends "Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead" to the Top of U.K. Charts

It's no secret that some people such as  Meryl Streep remember Margaret Thatcher as a "pioneer,"   and others, well, not so much. And these non-mourners have taken their protests from Twitter hashtags (that convinced people  Cher died) to the iTunes chart .

"Make 'Ding dong the witch is dead' number 1 the week Thatcher dies," the Facebook that sparked this movement reads. "I don't agree with the media portrayal of this 'great woman'..."

And the anti-Thatcherites did it. Judy Garland 's track from The Wizard of Oz now sits at the number one spot on the U.K. charts .


Curious? This is what a street party celebrating Thatcher's death looks like (and sounds like—includes some NSFW language):

It was not Wizard of Oz theme and featured no ruby slippers or boom boxes blaring "Ding Dong!" on repeat. Though it did resurrect the Specials' "Ghost Town."

If you're in the U.S. and raising an eyebrow at all of this, well, "Here's to Never Growing Up" by  Avril Lavigne is at number 7 on our charts, so maybe we shouldn't judge each other's taste in music.

[Conker]

they have just cut it to 45% for highest earners

well it was 40% under labour for the vast majority of their tenure. when people are bashing the rich and claiming how well they're looked after etc, it's worth bearing in mind that the top 1% of earners in the UK pay nearly 30% of all the tax.

better to have 40% or 45% of something than be greedy and end up with 0% of nothing...

[Henda]

well it was 40% under labour for the vast majority of their tenure. when people are bashing the rich and claiming how well they're looked after etc, it's worth bearing in mind that the top 1% of earners in the UK pay nearly 30% of all the tax.

better to have 40% or 45% of something than be greedy and end up with 0% of nothing...

the point remains that the tories once again have made things better for the rich and worse for the poor. Cutting tax for the rich makes no sense whatsoever and only confirms that they want to look after the rich. Cameron needs to be assasinated.

[BigCyp]

the point remains that the tories once again have made things better for the rich and worse for the poor. Cutting tax for the rich makes no sense whatsoever and only confirms that they want to look after the rich. Cameron needs to be assasinated.

They are the scum of the earth.

[Donny]